Skip to main content
The Failure of Worldview Education in Christian Colleges
John Barber, Ph.D.

Christian colleges are right to stand for and to teach a biblical world and life view to their students. However, the worldview curriculums of the majority of these schools are comparative in nature. That is to say, they teach what the Bible says about sex vs. what the world says about sex; what the Bible says about creativity, vs. what the world says about creativity; what the Bible says about meaning vs. what the world says about meaning, so forth and so on. So far we are on philosophical ground.

However, when Jesus set forth the nature of his public ministry, he said, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He appointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor. He has sent Me to proclaim release to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind, to set free those who are oppressed, to proclaim the favorable year of the Lord” (Luke 4:18).

Jesus’ words tell me that worldview is more than a presuppositional basis for life, more than a grid through which a multiplicity of ideas can be neatly organized, and more than a Christian framework or system, against which, the pagan systems of the world can be seen and judged. Worldview also sees that we are to continue Jesus’ healing ministry on earth. One might argue that Jesus’ pronouncement in the synagogue only outlined his plan for ministry in application of his worldview. But Scripture teaches that it’s not possible to separate thought from deed. Theology is application.

Why do schools’ worldview syllabi deemphasize Jesus’ practical, healing perspective? I will offer one possible explanation. It has been my anecdotal observation that among those who ascribe to a rigid interpretation of the doctrine of God’s impassability is a general lack of sensitivity, not only for God’s faculty to express real emotion, but also for his ability to enter into human experience and to feel our hurt, our pains, and our joys.

However, the intercessory quality of Jesus’ compassionate ministry challenges this position. The biblical description of God’s emotions is not always the result of writers attributing human qualities to God (anthropopathism) but is more often the record of his own feelings. Even though God does not experience sinful emotions, nor is he overtaken by emotion, he yet feels emotions more perfectly than we do. God’s perfection is not a barrier that keeps him from feeling what we feel. To the contrary, it is a guarantee that what he feels, he feels absolutely.

To the extent that one sees God as the great philosophical stoic—inexpressive with no real joy or sadness—one will naturally aspire to the same disposition. But if one sees God as expressive, holding and revealing a multihued spectrum of emotive responses, then our subdued lives will be seen as an abnormality that we will seek to mature out of. If our love is modeled after God’s love, then like the humble man of Galilee our worldview will include a submissive spirit that walks the dusty paths of our contemporary Galilee as we seek to turn the world’s sadness into singing. The Christian worldview grasps the fact that belief without heart-felt passion for a world lost in sin is little more than philosophical air.

But many graduates of Christian colleges are not living as ambassadors of Christ’s healing ministry. Why? I would suggest two reasons.

First, these graduates believe that what they learned about worldview is true, but impractical. What difference does it make to know that the Christian worldview is a superior thought-system when the world is winning on the ground? Consequently, many of these former students have now committed themselves to a form of evangelical spiritual devotion that places the pursuit of personal virtue above the Bible’s call to replenish the Garden.

Second, there are those college alum who accepted the “comparative” method of distinguishing the Christian worldview from its counterfeits. But because that model presses the import of the primacy of the intellect, without also stressing God’s empathy for the lost and hurting, they too are failing to take the healing gospel to the world.

What is missing in both cases is a practical awareness of God’s passion. The cultural pietist flees culture that glorifies fleshly passion, while the intellectual worships a God of no passion. But God without any passion is an idol, while culture left untouched by God’s passion is the idol-maker’s workshop. What distinguishes the Christian worldview cannot be stipulated on theological and philosophical grounds only. There is also an incarnational dimension to worldview that if disregarded leaves us thinking God’s thoughts after him, but that is all.

We Americans in particular suffer from the bane of modern, Western thought: that it is permissible to believe something without doing it and remain consistent. What we must regain in our schools of Bible and theology is a truly comprehensive biblical worldview—one that joins head and heart, body and soul. Then, and only then, will we teach and live a Christian worldview.


Popular posts from this blog

Andy Stanley and the “NEW Hermeneutic”

The problem of faith and reason is longstanding in the history of theology. Augustine held that faith aids reason (credo ut intelligam) and that reason aids faith (intelligo un creadam). The church father is, however, inclined to stress the later over the former. It was with Thomas Aquinas, and his Summa Theologica, that the effort to reconcile faith and reason reached its apex. Rejecting the medieval doctrine of double truth, he placed natural reason prior to faith in effectively every area of the Christian life. The restrictions are the mysteries of the faith that reason cannot penetrate.
Thomas’ affirmation of the high role of native reason in Christian belief is linked to his stress on dialectical method in study, seminally set forth by Peter Abelard. The form of study is dependent largely on logic to argue both sides of a theological question. Christian belief is thus the proper result of process or synthesis. Faith then assents to the final proposition arrived at by reason.

Pat Robertson is Warned!

Pat Robertson is taking it on the chin again. Seems each time he opines on why bad things happen to us, there is someone to call him on it.
Most recently, Dr. Richard Mouw has taken up the challenge in response to Robertson's recent statement on the Las Vegas shooting, in which at least 59 people were killed and more than 500 were wounded in the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history.
In a piece, titled, "You've Been Warned, PatRobertson!" Mouw, for whom I have deep respect, pens,

"It didn’t take long for some preachers to start telling us why God caused the horrible mass murder in Las Vegas to happen. Pat Robertson led the way, declaring that it was divine retribution for the widespread 'disrespect' for Donald Trump in America."
If Robertson had limited his rationale for the Vegas shooting to God punishing us for people dissing the President, I'd be smacking him on the chin myself. But he didn't.
Robertson's brief remarks f…

Is Our Knowledge of God Analogical of Univocal?

As a matter of first principles in apologetics, we can ask, “What does the unbeliever know about God?” However, the biblical apologetic is shaped not only by what Scripture says the unbeliever knows, but also by what it reveals he can know; is capable of knowing, as a believer. So we might also ask, “Is it our hope that the unbeliever can know God as God knows himself or that he can know God reflectively, in a creaturely way?” This is the univocal/analogical problem in Christian epistemology. 

The question arises in the context of the structure of human thought. It bears its own unique dilemma. If we stress too excessively that knowledge of God is univocal we run the risk of lowering the incomprehensible God to the level of the finite and make God as one of us. But if we stress too emphatically knowledge of God per analogiam we may very well deprive God of all likeness to the humanity he has created with the result that all we are left with is a barren, abstraction.

To a considerable…